DOCSLIB.ORG

Coastal Rivers Aquatic Vegetation Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Coastal Rivers Aquatic Vegetation Analysis Coastal Aquatic Vegetation Analysis Weeki Wachee, Chassahowitzka, and Homosassa Coastal Rivers Aquatic Vegetation Analysis For Weeki Wachee, Chassahowitzka, and Homosassa Rivers August 2016 Coastal Aquatic Vegetation Analysis Weeki Wachee, Chassahowitzka, and Homosassa Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 1.0 Introduction 1-1 2.0 Scope of Project 2-1 3.0 Methods 3-1 3.1 Study Area 3-1 3.1.1 Regional Description 3-1 3.1.2 River Descriptions 3-3 4.0 Sampling Methods and Analytical Procedures 4-1 4.1 Submersed Aquatic Vegetation 4-1 4.1.1 Weeki Wachee River 4-1 4.1.2 Chassahowitzka River 4-4 4.1.3 Homosassa River 4-5 4.2 Quality Assurance, Data Summaries and Statistical Analyses 4-7 5.0 Results and Discussion 5-1 5.1 Total SAV Coverage 5-1 5.2 Total Vegetative Biomass 5-2 5.3 Angiosperm Biomass 5-5 5.4 Macroalgal Biomass 5-9 6.0 Analysis of Distributional and Biomass Changes 6-1 6.1 Discussion of Statistical Methods 6-1 6.2 Weeki Wachee River 6-3 6.2.1 Description of the Data 6-4 6.2.2 Overview of Statistical Procedures 6-7 6.2.3 Comparison of the 2015 Data and the Historical Data for the Weeki Wachee River 6-7 6.2.4 Discussion of Results 6-14 6.3 Chassahowitzka River 6-16 6.3.1 Description of the Data 6-17 6.3.2 Overview of Statistical Procedures 6-20 6.3.3 Comparison of the 2015 Data and the Historical Data from the Chassahowitzka River 6-20 6.3.4 Discussion of Results 6-28 6.4 Homosassa River 6-30 6.4.1 Description of the Data 6-31 6.4.2 Overview of Statistical Procedures 6-35 6.4.3 Comparison of the 2015 Data and the Historical Data 6-35 6.4.4 Discussion of Results 6-42 GNV/2016/152803A/8/6/15 i Coastal Aquatic Vegetation Analysis Weeki Wachee, Chassahowitzka, and Homosassa 6.5 Inter-River Comparisons 6-44 6.5.1 Description of the Collected Data and the Analyses 6-44 6.5.2 Comparison of the Data by Sampling Events for All Three Rivers 6-45 6.5.3 Comparison of the 2015 SAV Data to Pooled Data from Previous Sampling Events 6-50 6.5.4 Changes in SAV Data over Time 6-52 6.5.5 Discussion and Conclusions 6-59 7.0 Concluding Remarks 7-1 8.0 Literature Cited 8-1 Appendices Appendix A – Field data sheets for the 2015 monitoring period Appendix B – Submersed aquatic vegetation data collected for the period of record (CD attached) Appendix C – Period of record results –SAV coverage, SAV biomass, angiosperm biomass and macroalgae biomass Appendix D -- Frequency of occurrence and distributional patterns Appendix E – Results of SAS© statistical significance testing Appendix E1 – Weeki Wachee River Analysis Appendices: Results of SAS© Statistical Significance Testing Appendix E2 – Chassahowitzka River Analysis Appendices: Results of SAS© Statistical Significance Testing Appendix E3 – Homosassa River Analysis Appendices: Results of SAS© Statistical Significance Testing GNV/2016/152803A/8/6/15 ii Coastal Aquatic Vegetation Analysis Weeki Wachee, Chassahowitzka, and Homosassa List of Tables Table 4-1. Middle Station Location (latitude-longitude) for Weeki Wachee River Transects Sampled during the 2015 Monitoring Event ........................................................ 4-2 Table 4-2. Middle Station Location (latitude-longitude) for Chassahowitzka River Transects Sampled during the 2015 Monitoring Event ........................................................ 4-5 Table 4-3. Middle Station Location (latitude-longitude) for Homosassa River Transects Sampled during the 2015 Monitoring Event ........................................................ 4-7 Table 6-1. River-Wide Mean Total SAV Biomass for the Weeki Wachee River for All Previous Years (combined) Compared to the Mean Total SAV Biomass for 2015. .................................................................................................................. 6-8 Table 6-2. Comparison of Total SAV Biomass for the Weeki Wachee River by Transect for 1998-2011 (combined) and for 2015. Additional significant figures shown due to small biomass values. .................................................................................... 6-9 Table 6-3. River-Wide Mean SAV Percent Cover for the Weeki Wachee River for 2003- 2011 (combined) Compared to the Mean Total SAV Percent Cover for 2015. .. 6-10 Table 6-4. Comparison of Total SAV Percent Cover Data for the Weeki Wachee River by Transect for 2003-2011 (combined) and for 2015 ............................................. 6-10 Table 6-5. River-Wide Change in Mean Angiosperm Biomass for the Weeki Wachee River for All Previous Years (combined) Compared to the Mean Angiosperm Biomass for 2015. ............................................................................................ 6-12 Table 6-6. Comparison of Angiosperm Biomass for the Weeki Wachee River by Transect for 1998-2011 (combined) and for 2015. Additional significant figures shown due to small biomass values. ........................................................................... 6-12 Table 6-7. River-Wide Change in Mean Macroalgae Biomass for the Weeki Wachee River for All Previous Years (combined) Compared to the Mean Macroalgae Biomass for 2015. Additional significant figures shown due to small biomass values............................................................................................................... 6-13 Table 6-8. Change in Macroalgae Biomass for the Weeki Wachee River by Transect as Measured by the Difference between the Macroalgae Biomass for All Previous Years (combined) Compared to the Macroalgae Biomass for 2015 and the percentage of increase or decrease ................................................................. 6-13 Table 6-9. River-Wide Mean Total SAV Biomass for the Chassahowitzka River for All Previous Years (combined) Compared to the Mean Total SAV Biomass for 2015. ................................................................................................................ 6-21 Table 6-10. Comparison of Total SAV Biomass (gm/m2) for the Chassahowitzka River by Transect for 1998-2011 (combined) and for 2015. Additional significant figures shown due to small biomass values. ..................................................... 6-22 Table 6-11. River-Wide Mean SAV Percent Cover for the Chassahowitzka River for 2003- 2011 (combined) Compared to the Mean Total SAV Percent Cover for 2015. .. 6-23 Table 6-12. Comparison of Percent SAV Cover Data for the Chassahowitzka River by Transect for 2003-2011 (combined) and for 2015 ............................................. 6-24 GNV/2016/152803A/8/6/15 iii Coastal Aquatic Vegetation Analysis Weeki Wachee, Chassahowitzka, and Homosassa Table 6-13. River-Wide Change in Mean Angiosperm Biomass for the Chassahowitzka River for All Previous Years (combined) Compared to the Mean Angiosperm Biomass for 2015. ............................................................................................ 6-24 Table 6-14. Comparison of Angiosperm Biomass for the Chassahowitzka River by Transect for 1998-2011 (combined) and for 2015. Additional significant figures shown due to small biomass values. ..................................................... 6-25 Table 6-15. River-Wide Change in Mean Macroalgae Biomass for the Chassahowitzka River for All Previous Years (combined) Compared to the Mean Macroalgae Biomass for 2015. ............................................................................................ 6-26 Table 6-16. Change in Macroalgae Biomass for the Chassahowitzka River by Transect as Measured by the Difference between the Macroalgae Biomass for All Previous Years (combined) compared to the macroalgae biomass for 2015 and the percentage of increase or decrease ................................................................. 6-27 Table 6-17. River-Wide Change in Mean Total SAV Biomass for the Homosassa River for All Previous Years (combined) Compared to the Mean Total SAV Biomass for 2015. Additional significant figures shown due to small biomass values. .......... 6-37 Table 6-18. Comparison of Mean Total SAV Biomass (gm/m2) for the Homosassa River by Transect for 1998-2011 (combined) and for 2015. Additional significant figures shown due to small biomass values ...................................................... 6-37 Table 6-19. River-Wide Mean SAV Percent Cover for the Homosassa River for 2003-2011 (combined) Compared to the Mean Total SAV Percent Cover for 2015. ........... 6-38 Table 6-20. River-Wide Mean SAV Percent Cover for the Homosassa River for 2003-2011 (combined) Compared to the Mean Total SAV Percent Cover for 2015. ........... 6-38 Table 6-21. River-Wide Change in Mean Angiosperm Biomass for the Homosassa River for All Previous Years (combined) Compared to the Mean Angiosperm Biomass for 2015. Additional significant figures shown due to small biomass values............................................................................................................... 6-40 Table 6-22. Comparison of Angiosperm Biomass for the Homosassa River by Transect for 1998-2011 (combined) and for 2015. Additional significant figures shown due to small biomass values. .................................................................................. 6-40 Table 6-23. Comparison of Macroalgae Biomass for the Homosassa River by Transect for 1998-2011 (combined) and for 2015. Additional significant figures shown due to small biomass values. .................................................................................. 6-41 Table 6-24. Comparison of Macroalgae Biomass for the Homosassa River by Transect for 1998-2011 (combined) and for 2015. Additional significant figures shown due
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Final Report of the Scientific Peer Review Panel on The
    Engineers, FINAL REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW PANEL ON THE Scientists Planners& www.waterandair.com Environmental DATA AND METHODOLOGIES IN MFL Establishment for the Econfina River Prepared for SUWANNEE RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 9225 CR 49 Live Oak, Florida 32060 Prepared under Contract 03/04-137 By Water & Air Research, Inc. Peer Review Panel Ivan Chou, M.E., P.E. Louis Motz, Ph.D., P.E., D.WRE. Jeffrey Hill, Ph.D. E. Lynn Mosura-Bliss, M.A. December 2015 REAL PEOPLE REAL SOLUTIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Introduction 1 SCOPE OF REVIEW REQUIRED BY THE DISTRICT 2 REVIEW CONSTRAINTS 3 TIMETABLE 3 RESULTS OF PEER REVIEW 4 REVIEW SUMMARY 6 CONCLUSIONS 8 Appendices: Appendix A – Resumes Appendix B – Peer Review Forms Econfina Peer Review Report for SRWMD.docx 1/12/2016 INTRODUCTION The Minimum Flows and Levels (MFL) Program within the State of Florida is based on the requirements of Chapter 373.042 Florida Statutes. This statute requires that either a Water Management District (WMD) or the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) establish minimum flows for surface watercourses and minimum levels for groundwaters and surface waters. The statutory description of a minimum flow is “the limit at which further withdrawals would be significantly harmful to the water resources or ecology of the area” (Ch. 373.042 (1)(a), F.S.). The statute provides additional guidance to the WMDs and DEP on how to establish MFLs, including how they may be calculated, using the “best information available,” to reflect “seasonal variations,” when appropriate. Protection of non-consumptive uses also are to be considered as part of the process, but the decision on whether to provide for protection of non-consumptive uses is to be made by the Governing Board of the WMD or the DEP (Ch.
    [Show full text]
  • 2001 SWFWMD Land Acquisition Plan
    Five-Year Land Acquisition Plan 2001 SWFWMD i Land Acquisition Five-Year Plan 2001 Southwest Florida Water Management District Five-Year Land Acquisition Plan 2001 If a disabled individual wishes to obtain the information contained in this document in another form, please contact Cheryl Hill at 1-800-423-1476, extension 4452; TDD ONLY 1-800-231-6103; FAX (352)754-68771 ii Table of Contents Table of Contents Introduction and History 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1 Save Our Rivers 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1 Preservation 2000 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1 Florida Forever 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 3 Selection and Evaluation Process 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 5 Less-Than-Fee Acquisitions 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 10 Partnerships 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 13 Surplus Lands111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 16 Land Use/Management Activities111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 17 Management Planning 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 17 Land Use Implementation 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
    [Show full text]
  • Pasco County, Florida and Incorporated Areas
    PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA AND INCORPORATED AREAS Community Community Name Number DADE CITY, CITY OF 120231 NEW PORT RICHEY, CITY OF 120232 PASCO COUNTY Pasco County 120230 (UNINCORPORTED AREAS) PORT RICHEY, CITY OF 120234 SAN ANTONIO, CITY OF 120634 ST. LEO, TOWN OF 120166 ZEPHYRHILLS, CITY OF 120235 EFFECTIVE: September 26, 2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 12101CV000A NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report may not contain all data available within the Community Map Repository. It is advisable to contact the community repository for any additional data. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may revise and republish part or all of this FIS report at any time. In addition, FEMA may revise part of this FIS report by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS report. Therefore, users should consult with community officials and check the Community Map Repository to obtain the most current FIS report components. Selected Flood Insurance Rate Map panels for this community contain information that was previously shown separately on the corresponding Flood Boundary and Floodway Map panels (e.g., floodways, cross sections). In addition, former flood hazard zone designations have been changed as follows: Old Zone(s) New Zone Al through A30 AE V1 through V30 VE B X C X Initial Countywide FIS Effective Date: September 26, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Purpose of Study ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Seagrass Integrated Mapping and Monitoring for the State of Florida Mapping and Monitoring Report No. 1
    Yarbro and Carlson, Editors SIMM Report #1 Seagrass Integrated Mapping and Monitoring for the State of Florida Mapping and Monitoring Report No. 1 Edited by Laura A. Yarbro and Paul R. Carlson Jr. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Fish and Wildlife Research Institute St. Petersburg, Florida March 2011 Yarbro and Carlson, Editors SIMM Report #1 Yarbro and Carlson, Editors SIMM Report #1 Table of Contents Authors, Contributors, and SIMM Team Members .................................................................. 3 Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... 4 Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 7 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 31 How this report was put together ........................................................................................... 36 Chapter Reports ...................................................................................................................... 41 Perdido Bay ........................................................................................................................... 41 Pensacola Bay .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Pasco County Bridge Inventory Number Bridge Name Road Jurisdiction District Year Built Reconstruction Date Sufficiency Rating He
    Pasco County Bridge Inventory Year Reconstruction Sufficiency Health Inspection Number Bridge Name Road Jurisdiction District Built Date Rating Index Date ADT Ave Age 140003 Gowers Corner Creek US 41 (SR 45) FDOT 2 1938 1989 89.3 99.47 2/26/2015 10,100 27 140004 Scotts Big D Creek US 41 (SR 45) FDOT 1 1939 64.3 99.42 2/19/2015 10,100 77 140005 Pithlachascotee River US 19 (SR 55) FDOT 5 1970 1984 89.9 99.53 2/26/2015 54,000 32 140006 Interstate 75 Blanton Rd (CR 41) FDOT 1 1966 77.6 99.49 1/21/2015 5,000 50 140009 Hillsborough River CR 54 County 1 1962 87.3 90.05 2/24/2016 2,200 54 140013 Cabbage Swamp Wesley Chapel Blvd (CR 54) County 2 1963 1995 90.0 73.35 2/16/2017 59,500 22 140014 New River SR 54 FDOT 2 1957 85.0 74.72 2/25/2015 26,500 59 140017 Buckhorn Creek Relief SR 52 FDOT 5 1968 1998 69.8 68.99 2/18/2015 24,000 18 140018 Pithlachascotee River SR 52 FDOT 5 1968 84.3 70.47 2/18/2015 20,500 48 140019 Gowers Corner Creek SR 52 FDOT 3 1962 93.4 70.11 2/18/2015 10,900 54 140020 South Branch Anclote River SR 54 FDOT 3 2004 76.1 69.04 2/17/2015 17,600 12 140021 Pithlachascotee River Main St (NPR) County 4 1967 69.8 74.40 2/23/2016 10,000 49 140022 Bayou Branch SR 52 FDOT 2 1951 1998 95.5 62.40 2/24/2015 14,000 18 140024 Hillsborough River US 98 (SR 700) FDOT 1 1951 1995 98.1 59.48 2/12/2015 4,100 21 140025 CSX US 98 (SR 700) FDOT 1 1951 1995 88.5 95.26 2/25/2015 4,100 21 140028 Canal C-534 US 41 (SR 45) FDOT 1 1969 85.5 97.41 2/19/2015 10,100 47 140029 Bayonet Point Drain US 19 (SR 55) FDOT 5 1970 72.9 85.98 2/18/2015 49,500 46 140030
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 62-302: Surface Water Quality Standards
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. blue – not a standard black – standard TCHAPTER 62-302: WATER QUALITY STANDARDS Effective April 30, 2018 In instances where the EPA has determined that certain provisions are not considered new or revised water quality standards, the Agency has attempted to indicate those in blue text. However, the font color indicated within this document, should not be interpreted as the official position of the Agency, and primarily addresses recent reviews by the EPA. For more detailed explanations on the EPA’s analysis and rationale related to decisions of new or revised water quality standards, see the Agency’s historical decision documents and associated records or contact the appropriate Agency staff. Additionally, arrow boxes found in the margins of this document direct the reader to other new or revised water quality standards which are related to provisions found in Chapter 62-302 but are found in documents outside of the regulations and are generally incorporated by reference. (See Attachments A-E of this document). The State of Florida recently revised the table of surface water criteria set out at section 62-302, F.A.C., to incorporate new human health criteria and designated uses promulgated by the state in 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Paddling Trails Leave No Trace Principles 5
    This brochure made possible by: Florida Paddling Trails Leave No Trace Principles 5. Watch for motorboats. Stay to the right and turn the When you paddle, please observe these principles of Leave bow into their wake. Respect anglers. Paddle to the No Trace. For more information, log on to Leave No Trace shore opposite their lines. at www.lnt.org. 6. Respect wildlife. Do not approach or harass wildlife, as they can be dangerous. It’s illegal to feed them. q Plan Ahead and Prepare q Camp on Durable Surfaces 7. Bring a cell phone in case of an emergency. Cell q Dispose of Waste Properly phone coverage can be sporadic, so careful preparation q Leave What You Find and contingency plans should be made in lieu of relying on q Minimize Campfire Impacts cell phone reception. q Respect Wildlife FloridaPaddling Trails q Be Considerate of Other Visitors 8. If you are paddling on your own, give a reliable A Guide to Florida’s Top person your float plan before you leave and www.FloridaGreenwaysAndTrails.com leave a copy on the dash of your car. A float Canoeing & Kayaking Trails Trail Tips plan contains information about your trip in the event that When you paddle, please follow these tips. Water you do not return as scheduled. Don’t forget to contact the conditions vary and it will be up to you to be person you left the float plan with when you return. You can prepared for them. download a sample float plan at http://www.floridastateparks.org/wilderness/docs/FloatPlan.pdf.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Minimum Flows for the Pithlachascotee River - Revised Draft Report for Peer Review
    Proposed Minimum Flows for the Pithlachascotee River - Revised Draft Report for Peer Review August 29, 2016 1 Proposed Minimum Flows for the Pithlachascotee River - Revised Draft Report for Peer Review August 29, 2016 Doug Leeper, Gabriel Herrick, Ron Basso, Mike Heyl, Yonas Ghile Southwest Florida Water Management District Brooksville Florida and Michael Flannery, Tammy Hinkle, Jason Hood and Gary Williams, Ph.D. Formerly with the Southwest Florida Water Management District With contributions by HDR Engineering, Inc. Tampa, Florida The Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) does not discriminate on the basis of disability. This nondiscrimination policy involves every aspect of the District’s functions, including access to and participation in the District’s programs and activities. Anyone requiring reasonable accommodation as provided for in the Americans with Disabilities Act should contact the District’s Human Resources Bureau Chief, 2379 Broad St., Brooksville, FL 34604-6899; telephone (352) 796- 7211 or 1-800-423-1476 (FL only), ext. 4703; or email [email protected]. If you are hearing or speech impaired, please contact the agency using the Florida Relay Service, 1-800-955- 8771 (TDD) or 1-800-955-8770 (Voice). 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 5 Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Florida SEP Amendment 3
    State of Florida STATE EXPENDITURE PLAN – Amendment 3 (January 2021) Submitted Pursuant to the Spill Impact Component of the RESTORE Act 33 U.S.C. § 1321(t)(3) 1 Executive Summary This third amendment to the State Expenditure Plan (SEP) for the State of Florida, prepared by the Gulf Consortium (Consortium), addresses the following: Replaces Taylor County’s original Coastal Public Access Program with 3 new projects Adds a new project in Pasco County for Channel Restoration and habitat improvement Clarifies a change in the property planned for acquisition in Hillsborough County Revises the scope of Santa Rosa County’s project Santa Rosa Sound Water Quality Improvement Program to accommodate the cost of capacity increases required of the Navarre Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility (NBWWTF). An updated project milestone table is included with this amendment (Table 1); this replaces the sequencing summary table found on pages 483-484 in the original SEP. An updated project summary table, showing all Spill Impact Component project total costs can be found in Table 2; this replaces the project summary table found on pages 455-456 in the original SEP. State Certification of RESTORE Act Compliance In accordance with Section 5.2.2 of the SEP Guidelines provided by the Council, the Gulf Consortium hereby certifies the following: • All projects, programs, and activities included in the Florida SEP amendment are eligible activities as defined by the RESTORE Act. • All projects, programs, and activities included in the Florida SEP amendment contribute to the overall economic and/or ecological recovery of the Gulf Coast. • The FL SEP amendment takes into consideration the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Florida River Flow Patterns and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation Appendix a Page 1 of 152 List of Appendix Figures
    Working Draft Florida River Flow Patterns and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation Appendix A Page 1 of 152 List of Appendix Figures This appendix contains two types of figures. The first figure for each waterbody is a comparison of two multidecadal time periods (1940-1969 and 1970-1999) with summary statistics. The second figure of each figure pair is a presentation of decadal median daily flow plots. Page River/Stream USGS Code River Pattern WA POR Begins sq miles 1 List of Figures 7 Alafia River at Lithia 02301500 SRP 335 10/01/32 9 Anclote River near Elfers 02310000 SRP 72.5 06/01/46 11 Apalachicola River at Chattahoochee 02358000 NRP 17200 10/01/28 13 Arbuckle Creek near De Soto City 02270500 SRP 379 07/01/39 15 Big Coldwater Creek near Milton 02370500 NRP/Spring 237 12/01/38 17 Big Creek near Clermont 02236500 Bimodal 68 08/01/58 19 Blackwater Creek near Knights 02302500 SRP 110 01/01/51 21 Brooker Creek near Tarpon Springs 02307359 SRP 30 09/01/50 23 Caloosahatchee Canal at Moore Haven 02292000 Altered NOWAG 10/01/38 25 Catfish Creek near Lake Wales 02267000 Spring? 58.9 10/01/47 27 Charlie Creek near Gardner 02296500 SRP 330 05/01/50 29 Chipola river near Altha 02359000 NRP 781 12/01/12 31 Choctawhatchee River at Caryville 02365500 NRP 3499 08/01/29 Appendix A Working Draft August 10, 2004 Working Draft Florida River Flow Patterns and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation Appendix A Page 2 of 152 List of Appendix Figures - continued This appendix contains two types of figures.
    [Show full text]
  • Seminole-Tribune-March-23-2001.Pdf
    Bulk Rate U.S. Postage Paid Lake Placid FL Permit No. 128 TheSEMINOLE TRIBUNE “Voice of the Unconquered” $1.00 www.seminoletribe.com Volume XXII Number 4 March 23, 2001 The Last Time New Audit Ordered n September of 1970, I was hanging out at Port Everglades Cut, diving for lobsters. After I Icaught my quota, I decided to take the long Hard Rock way around and look at the Stranahan House. So I took my boat up Ha shee he ma shee (New River) and to my surprise, as I spproached the familiar Project Grinds old building, there stood Mrs. Stranahan. Since I knew her fairly well, I yelled out to her and she recognized my face. She motioned Forward to me to park my small motorboat at her dock. We By Charles Flowers carried on a conversation, HOLLYWOOD — After more than a month of talking about many people in-fighting, and questions over details of the financing and who were still alive or other agreements the Tribal Council had made with Hard gone. I asked her if she Rock developers over the past nine months, the Council wanted any lobsters and passed three resolutions on March 13 to move the project she took two. She invited forward. me in on the porch for The first resolution authorized the Tribe to seek a some soup. I can recall $40 million “bridge loan” to keep construction moving on how frail she looked. the Hollywood development – the larger of the two proj- Her eyesight was ects with its 750-room hotel, café and casino.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume I. Report FINAL
    DATA INVENTORY, TREND ANALYSIS, RECOMMENDED MONITORING: FLORIDA SPRINGS COAST Volume I. Report FINAL Submitted to: Scott E. Stevens, P.E., Project Manager Southwest Florida Water Management District Surface Water Improvement and Management Section of the Resource Projects Department 7601 U.S. 301 North Tampa, FL 33637 Submitted by: Mote Marine Laboratory 1600 Ken Thompson Parkway Sarasota, Florida 34236 (941) 388-4441 L. Kellie Dixon Principal Investigator December 5, 1997 Mote Marine Laboratory Technical Report Number 547 This document is printed on recycled paper. Suggested reference Dixon LK. 1997. Data inventory, trend analysis, and recommended monitoring: Florida Springs coast. Southwest Florida Water Management District. Mote Marine Laboratory Technical Report no 547. 66 p. and appendices. Available from: Mote Marine Laboratory Library. TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I. REPORT Page Table of Contents . i List of Figures . iii List of Tables . iv Acknowledgements . v I. Executive Summary ......................................... I-1 II. Introduction .............................................. I-2 III. Project Summary and Goals .................................... I-2 IV. Geographic Scope and Regional Description .......................... I-3 V. Conceptual Model .......................................... I-3 VI. Data Inventory ............................................ I-9 VII. Data Summaries .......................................... I-11 VIII. Selection of Data Sets and Minimum Criteria ........................ I-13 Data Selection
    [Show full text]